Posted on 07/06/2010 12:30:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Here’s the short story: Leaked NDA Microsoft slides that landed on an Italian blog site have spread like wildfire. The content of the slides shows that Microsoft is pushing some innovative technology for Windows 8, but also very much looking to Apple’s business model for inspiration. Here’s some analysis.
First, a tip of the hat to Mary Jo Foley over at ZDNet for condensing the story. She sourced the Microsoft Kitchen blog that covered the leak, and that blog, in turn sourced the Italian blog ‘Windowsette’ that scooped the leak, which in turn was picked up by most of the Apple rumors sites that I read. Bottom line? This stuff is everywhere.
But other than the plethora of new features, technology, and 2012 timeline Microsoft has laid out for the release of Windows 8, there’s one very interesting slide in particular.
No, you’re not seeing things. That’s an — allegedly — internal slide from the Microsoft Windows team, asking themselves how Apple does so damn well, and how they can mimic the results. The best part is? They’ve even focused on Apple’s mantra “It Just Works.” What’s more interesting than that is the focus on value and user experience. Windows Vista was a focus on flashier graphics, but didn’t do so hot in the UX field. Windows 7 finally started to nail that down, and my assumption is that Windows 8 will be much more fluid, futuristic and minimalistic-ly modern a-la Mac OS X.
Worth repeating: value is the focus here. Microsoft wants to create something people want to pay for, other than something people simply buy because it’s cheaper or preloaded on a PC. Apple has shown that a price tag isn’t as big of a deal when the product has a high level of worth and desirability and functionality.
Lastly, the above picture of the computer is — dare I say it — an iMac prototype clone for a “Windows” computer running Windows 8. In case you were curious, other leaked slides detail that there may be a Windows App store, plus faster start-up and shutdown time, a refocus on functionality and snappier user experience, easier recovery, restore and reset and a facial recognition system for logging in for enhanced security.
Officially, Microsoft hasn’t made a comment, but we didn’t think they would.
Here’s to Windows 8.
Don’t worry, what you saw never happened, the Mac fans are never antagonistic nor do they cast insults...;)
Oh, d-uh, of course! How silly of me!
> ...if folks don't think Apple doesn't do the same thing, well, all I can say...
Exactly. They'd be derelict in their due diligence if they didn't examine the competition. And it's not like Microsoft watching what Apple does is anything new. It's been going on since Windows 1.0. I know you're familiar with this old photo (1985); I'm posting it for the rest of the folks on the thread. :)
I’ve often wondered if he or Paul had any idea of the hundreds of billions they would make for themselves and many, many others.
Everybody stumbles. You can kick ‘em while they’re down, or stand back, let ‘em pick themselves up and see what you get for your trouble. Your choice.
He certainly didn’t see the Internet coming or he wouldn’t have posed like that I hope.
Thanks. I have no axe to grind, no stock in any of the companies, no long-term brand loyalties. I try everything, and prefer that which does my tasks the best, as judged by me. I admit to a mild historical bias towards Unix. If you haven't already done so you can check my profile page disclaimer.
I deeply enjoy reasonable discussions of the pros and cons of the various hardware and software. I love learning things from other FReepers whose experience is different from mine. I don't like flamewars and do my best to avoid them, or to calm them when unavoidable.
> Your stepping in when the resident Apple trolls act up would be appreciated. It’s been worse than ever recently.
Actually I've been doing that for quite a while, and I think Swordmaker will attest to that. And when I post a thread of my own, I have taken to formally requesting that trolling and namecalling be left aside so that we can have some civil discourse.
I dislike -all- such misbehavior. The recent huge increase in anti-Apple trolling finally exceeded my puke threshold. I've bailed on a lot of threads because it's just not worth my time. I'm 58, and I may only live to 90 or so. ;-)
Of course, anti-Microsoft trolling happens too, but not as much. I don't know why, but speculate it's partly because there's no "Windows Ping List" (which is a shame IMO), and partly because Apple is The-Company-to-Bash these days because they're on an upswing and and Microsoft has not been for a while.
I've found that certain folks who are clearly partisan can nonetheless be engaged in reasonable conversation. I prefer to attempt that, when it appears possible and worthwhile.
I've mostly stopped trying to reply to those who are so clearly partisan that they can't see what they're doing. And those folks are found in all camps -- no side has a monopoly on fanaticism.
I don't doubt it. Gates was a brilliant young man with incredible ambition. I'm sure you've read his early articles and posts to the tech mags in the 1970's -- he had every intention of crushing the "free-and-open-source-software" movement (then known as the "hobbyist" movement) and founding the "non-free-and-proprietary-software" movement. His goal was to change the model by which software was created, developed, and sold. He said so many years before IBM gave him the leg up with the request for a DOS for the new IBM-PC. And he succeeded wildly.
"Hundreds of billions"? Maybe not in exactly those terms. But I don't doubt for a minute he dedicated his life's-work to making as much money as he could. That a lot of other people would get rich on his coattails, and indirectly from his company's products, may have not been explicit, but knowing Gates (by reputation, I've never met him) I would bet he thought about that too.
I have a grudging admiration for the man. Grudging, only because I was one of the "hobbyists" he vowed to crush. He's rich, I'm not. Oh well... ;-)
Oh, I am sooo way past that one.... I am the Mac Hater’s FanGrrl #1. And the subject of a dozen personally harassing posts a day from them. All in a days work.
Thanks for the kudos.
> Microsoft doesn’t make their own hardware and doesn’t even try to set a minimalist standard.
Microsoft does indeed make hardware; granted, not much -- no motherboards, power supplies, and such. They make peripherals (the old MS Mouse was the standard PC mouse for a long time) and a few other side items, some of which are quite good, some of which suck ferociously. Their hardware offerings often become defacto standards.
But more important, Microsoft does indeed set standards for what is a PC for running Windows, at every level of detail from chipsets to commands to available API support. They have done so very clearly and explicitly since the mid-90's. And those standards are the reason that nearly any hardware made today in the PC realm will run Windows. It's not an accident.
By "like that", do you mean "with the Macintosh in the background", the "I'm a rich techno-hunk" slouch, or the stoned-on-his-ass facial expression?
It's easy to criticize them about everything, but when you stop and think that they make $1.2 billion in net profit EACH MONTH, well, they're doing something right! They do a lot wrong, and stumble a lot, but if they want to dominate a market, well, they usually end up doing just that. They have a focus and determination to just keep going that few companies have.
I think that comes from Bill and Paul directly; having met both, they're very nice, mild-mannered, calm guys but have a VERY intense focus about them...
Not to mention the Xbox...;) That’s a huge market, they sell around 400,000 Xbox systems a month, leading the entire market.
They do a LOT of other hardware development as well, for other companies to put their labels on. Most of the telecom work I’ve done for Microsoft has worn the labels of other companies, not Microsoft. Microsoft develops the hardware (even the ASICs), the firmware, the ID, the entire system, pays to tool it, selects and qualifies the factory, then turns it over to another company to brand and sell. All using Microsoft OSes and connectivity.
Even though they’ll spend $10 million to make a phone system, they give it away to someone else, because they know - in the long run - they’ll make back ten times that amount in licensing and further lock themselves in as the standard for the industry.
> ...they make $1.2 billion in net profit EACH MONTH, well, they're doing something right!
"Right"? Well, "Successful", yes.
A fellow who decides to take out his competition by standing in the center with a machine-gun and swinging it in a circle will be successful in eliminating his competitors. But he will not necessarily have "done something right" in an ethical sense.
I shouldn't have to give you the details, you doubtless know the people involved. ;-)
Viewed over the last 35 years, Microsoft's business tactics were more often than not ruthless, and a few times they were unethical enough that they got in legal trouble over them (I discount the more recent EU actions, since the EU is insane).
Other than that observation, I certainly agree with you about their focus and determination.
Gates was never big in the style department. He always comes across as being like “Terry the Toad” from American Graffiti. Sometimes I wonder if he does it so others will underestimate him.
Absolutely. I loved the fact that Germany pushed the RoHS rules that eliminated lead in solder, which only INCREASES the death-rate of electronics (from having to do higher temperature solders). Can't have that lead in the landfills, you know!
Never mind you can pick up raw lead ore laying around in the Black Forest! ;)
Yes of course I know they make small add on’s. I have a very nice bluetooth Microsoft Mouse. I like it better than the mighty mouse by apple. And because I use both OSX and Windows on my MBPro, it works better when I am in Windows than does the mighty mouse.
As for the basic standards, I am sure you are aware that the bar is not very high at all and many times when a PC is certified to run a newer OS it often fails to actually meet the standard in practice. So, once again, my generalizing seems to be taken a bit too literally. Always remember, this is a comparison, and so when I say it as a definitive, I am still retaining the comparison.
So, Microsoft does not make the hardware which is the PC itself. There is no “Microsoft PC” and the available suppliers of PCs and PC parts are widely varied in their costs, quality and quantities. Which, is the exact opposite of the Apple format. Apple designs and builds their own hardware, many times as in the case of the new CPU chips for the iPad, entirely from scratch by buying a chip making company upfront and just doing it themselves. That alone makes the comparison starkly and radically opposed.
Now, when we come to things like the standards for, in the example you used, chipsets and API calls, your angle actually harms the argument. There are numerous chipsets out there, from new to old to hackable to overclockable and while Microsoft does set “a standard” it is so poor and varied as to likely be the cause of 90% of the hardware and internal peripheral conflicts.
I won’t even bother to chase this one down as it could be a 30 page post all by itself. Northbridge, southbridge, DDR, USB, H264, which CPUs, what Ram, even the BIOS all fall into the chip set configuration. Each chip set has its own code name, and a list of stats for each iteration which take up a page or two in google searches to describe what hardware and software is suited best for which set and known compatibility issues.
You cannot truly call THAT “a standard”. It’s a list. It’s a framework. It might even been a guideline... but a standard is STANDARD. SAME. 75mph speed is a standard. “30mph to 80mph” is a range...
And 30 under X conditions, subject to B circumstances, allowing for C overlap, between Y and Z exchanges, etc etc.... that’s a HEADACHE... not a standard.
My point is, THIS IS THE WORLD Microsoft is STUCK with. They cannot DO anything about it.... NOW. They don’t make the hardware, and they have NO standards. That’s what I said, and comparatively speaking, that is exactly the case for why they cannot “out Apple Apple” and shouldn’t even try.
Now, my last point was there ARE things they CAN and SHOULD do better. And I am ALL FOR IT. I use windows. I want it better. And everyone benefits if they do what they do and do it better than they have been doing it.
Yep. I was trying to stick to "PC computer" hardware, since that appeared to be Rachel's original comment.
> Even though they’ll spend $10 million to make a phone system, they give it away to someone else, because they know - in the long run - they’ll make back ten times that amount in licensing and further lock themselves in as the standard for the industry.
I would venture to add that they also know that the "Microsoft" brand logo is a mixed blessing for certain products. There are the Microsoft fanboys who will buy anything with an MS or Windows logo on it (no different in that regard from Apple fanboys), but I daresay there are even more people who look at a Microsoft "Anything-Other-Than-Software" and their reaction is, "What the hell is Microsoft doing in this business???"
I suspect that plays into why MSFT often stays in the background...
Yeah, PCs. Until Mac makes a gaming console. the Xbox war is one I am not fighting.
Now, that said, we can talk about X box. The hardware that they have NEVER made a profit on yet.
Now, before anyone goes off into left field, THINK about what I just said. NEVER. And PROFIT.
That is, I know they lost over 6 billion the first 4 years on it, and I know they actually DID earn more than they spent for the first time in 3rd Quarter 2008, and have from time to time posted quarterly gains in profit loss statements.
But that is NOT a profit. A profit is if you spend 100 total and make 101 or more back.
Spending 100 a quarter and having most quarters return 50 and a few return 101, does NOT make for ANY actual profit.
So, fine by me if anyone wants to play the Microsoft does make hardware look at Xbox HA HA HA.
Sure.... LUV to look at it. It’s the perfect example of my whole text book case for why they should NOT BOTHER.
I do not know why they got into the game wars... it has burnt capital and is a bigger albatross than their OS woes.
But, I do know this much.... Apple has 5 toes in the water with all the games on the App store and Sony and Nintendo and Microsoft TREMBLE and say their prayers every night before bed about the Apple boogyman. Because someday, it’s gonna come and everyone knows it. The profits on Xbox and Sony are only a short span away from being loss leaders to outright leaders, and they all fear the iPhoning of the console.
And they should. Apple isn’t a PC company anymore. They changed the name a few back and they meant it. Apple WILL do a gaming console, when they have it perfected. And it will change EVERYTHING, just the way the mouse did, the GUI did, the USB port did, the iPhone did, etc etc etc etc.
And I can hardly wait. Half the reason I have Windows on this is for my Fallout 3!
> THIS IS THE WORLD Microsoft is STUCK with. They cannot DO anything about it....
No argument there. Microsoft does not make SYSTEMS, they make software and a thousand other somebodies make the hardware.
Apple has the tremendous advantage that they make SYSTEMS. As one who has spent much of my professional life as a system design engineer, I can say without a trace of hesitation that a contained, integrated, well-composed system will nearly always beat an open hodge-podge assembly for conceptual integrity, ease of use, elegance, and solidity, to name but a few traits.
But I would argue that while Apple's systems often provide excellent high-bar examples of how things ought to be done, they do not "set standards" in the technical sense you describe, of "you must do this to comply with the standard". That is because Apple protects their designs rigorously (as they should), and they do not really want other manufacturers using them as a standard -- in that technical sense.
So perhaps I do not understand your "comparison", since Apple doesn't provide standards of the sort you fault Microsoft for not providing, either...?
Additionally, they benefit ENORMOUSLY from the open hardware world that Microsoft supports. The advances and huge cost savings in modern hardware are a direct result of Microsoft providing a common platform for that hardware to support.
Think of the closed systems that no longer exist because they simply could not keep up with the pace of innovation in the open-standards hardware world... A standard platform has allowed the hardware to develop and explode. It was the PC platform that caused the revolution of the 80s, and that was because IBM was not able to lock it down as a closed system (thanks, Compaq!).
Apple now benefits from that - standard PC hardware, developed because Microsoft provided the OS and support platform (the open driver model) to spur that innovation. All the Mac hardware is from the PC world, and it's why you can run a PC-based Linux directly on Macs. They are now in the world of the PC, in terms of hardware.
Closed systems can yield amazing elegant and solid systems, but ultimately do not provide the open and stable platform for broad market innovation and advancement. Market growth requires a mix of both; close the system too much and you get zero growth. Keep it too chaotic (no stable API or driver model, for example) and nothing can stabilize for development.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.